1. From 10,00,000 to 10,000 won, Defendant B Co., Ltd. is among the first floor of the building indicated in the attached Table 1 from January 10, 2017 to 200.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 10, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant Company on the lease of Gwangju-si E and Fho (area 74.95 square meters) owned by the Plaintiff, setting the lease term of one year, lease deposit of ten million won, and monthly rent of 250,000 won.

B. The Defendant Company did not pay the Plaintiff monthly rent since January 2017.

C. On November 30, 2018, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant Company of the termination of the said lease agreement, and demanded the delivery of the leased object. On December 4, 2018 and January 23, 2019, the Plaintiff notified Defendant D of the termination of the said lease agreement, respectively, to leave the leased object.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the claim against the Defendant Company, the above lease agreement was terminated on or around November 30, 2018, and as so, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the money calculated by deducting the amount calculated by the rate of KRW 250,000 per month from January 10, 2017 to the date of delivery of the leased object from the Plaintiff, a lessor, as the Plaintiff’s request, at the same time, from the amount of money calculated by deducting the amount of KRW 10,000 per month from January 10, 2017 to the date of delivery of the leased object.

B. Defendant D’s assertion as to the claim against Defendant D that the above leased object was possessed in the capacity of the representative of the Defendant Company. Thus, according to the evidence No. 2, Defendant D could acknowledge the fact that Defendant D was a director and representative of the Defendant Company. On the other hand, it is insufficient to view that Defendant D possessed the above leased object in the capacity of a natural person who is not an institution of a legal entity, on the sole basis of the evidence No. 4-1, No. 2, or No. 6, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, Defendant D’s claim against Defendant D is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant company is justified.